I'd ask how many f*cking massacres does it take before right-wing fantasists will wake up to their inhuman beliefs but the answer is these gibbering, evil idiots never will. I'm done talking. Just give me a steamroller and I'll run them all over, guns and all.

You'll never do shit about anything like that, ever, because you're in that half of your countrymen who are pussified submissives going through life thinking what they're told to think, doing what they're told to do, like a good little socialist drones, subservient to the authitorian Collective.
This is big dave's flag.This is mcgruff's flag._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm; edited 2 times in total

Let's not get too excited over this incident. The USA has about 10000 homicides by guns per year. That is 27 per day. In other words, this has been a totally normal day in the USA. We should also keep in mind that the USA is not the worst country in the world. For example, Mexico is much worse. Maybe the NRA could use those warm words for the parents of the angles.

If he has procreated we are all doomed._________________At the heart of the durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many different warring interests that large-scale change is impossible to those without a codebook.

My impression is that if you think really hard about a gun in the US, it just materializes out of thin air. It's that easy to get a gun there. Yes, the system is flooded with guns. Some people use them to do bad things. Not rocket science.

And there is the answer to Dmitchel's question. Prevent the woman from having a gun.

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone._________________Your argument is invalid.

I feel that most of these events are the result of misunderstanding. If we all just made an effort to understand and love each other, this wouldn't happen. I love you guys. [Mod edit for clarity. — JRG]

That's moronic, knives can open veins and arteries even more effectively than guns if that's what the knife user intends. Guns are great at incapacitating from a distance, if you want to really make sure the job is done, opening up their neck and letting them bleed out is the only way to be certain they're going to die._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime.

Not even then. Northern Ireland had a blanket ban on firearm ownership (with a few exceptions) for decades, it didn't stop any of the paramilitary organisations from acquiring handguns, assault rifles and other serious military equipment. The black market always picks up from where governments inhibit, always._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone.

Well, she did pose a danger, didn't she? She didn't prevent this nut from getting her gun.

Two things. You are right. What do you do about the bajillion guns already in circulation? That's a problem. Another problem is of course you don't want to disarm the populace while criminals keep their guns.

As per BK comment that there is no proof that guns affect the murder rate, I am not sure about this. Various articles claim to make a link, and there are various counter articles. I think "proof" is hard. We aren't talking about sets not large enough to do proper stats, the age old problem with social science statistics.

I actually don't think things like this should affect gun laws in the sense that these events are too infrequent. Granted, 2012 has seen a rash of these things. In the same way, you are falling into the same trap with your anecdotal stories. That is, talking about some granny who held off 3 monstrous black men because she had a gun isn't a good reason to be pro gun either. Infrequent events emotive events shouldn't affect policy. Although, frankly, I would understand if it did in this case. If my child was at that school, I would be more anti gun than I am now. however, what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe? I am not saying that evidence exists, I am asking what if. If such evidence exists, then in your story of the maimed/raped/murdered, you tell such victims that while we took your ability to defend yourself, you are actually statistically safer. Sorry that bad luck struck you, you were in fact more likely to get shot in the parallel universe where everyone had guns. you don't go out and buy a lottery ticket just because your neighbour wins.

what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe?

let's say you had absolutely incontrovertible evidence that said that. i still would not support it.

for starters, the numbers across the board might be safer, but the distribution will not be fair across races and income levels. by doing this, you remove every individual's right to self defense. you remove personal accountability, and you put our safety in the hands of those who have little incentive to guard it equally.

you shift our protection onto the same government that labeled MLK a terrorist and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. these are the same guys who end up on youtube senselessly beating people. they have a proven track record of lying, cheating, stealing, discrimination, fraud, and corruption.

but that's not enough... what happens when they fail and it's not because they're being dicks? there's NO law that says the police actually have a duty to protect. courts have overwhelmingly concluded that there is no such legal duty. if there was such a duty, when the police fail to perform that duty, you could sue them. there are so many cases of blatant incompetence... a domestic victim keeps calling the cops and they do nothing, and she eventually gets killed by her boyfriend/husband; home invasion victims report an invasion in progress, but cops don't show up for 2+ hours if at all. lawyers keep taking these cases, and they never succeed. so if you remove my right to defend myself, how are you going to make them accountable when they fail to protect me? ultimately, i am the one who has the strongest incentive to protect myself... how does it make sense to prohibit me from doing so, and instead, put that obligation in the hands of someone who has little incentive to protect me?

what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe?

let's say you had absolutely incontrovertible evidence that said that. i still would not support it.

for starters, the numbers across the board might be safer, but the distribution will not be fair across races and income levels. by doing this, you remove every individual's right to self defense. you remove personal accountability, and you put our safety in the hands of those who have little incentive to guard it equally.

you shift our protection onto the same government that labeled MLK a terrorist and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. these are the same guys who end up on youtube senselessly beating people. they have a proven track record of lying, cheating, stealing, discrimination, fraud, and corruption.

but that's not enough... what happens when they fail and it's not because they're being dicks? there's NO law that says the police actually have a duty to protect. courts have overwhelmingly concluded that there is no such legal duty. if there was such a duty, when the police fail to perform that duty, you could sue them. there are so many cases of blatant incompetence... a domestic victim keeps calling the cops and they do nothing, and she eventually gets killed by her boyfriend/husband; home invasion victims report an invasion in progress, but cops don't show up for 2+ hours if at all. lawyers keep taking these cases, and they never succeed. so if you remove my right to defend myself, how are you going to make them accountable when they fail to protect me? ultimately, i am the one who has the strongest incentive to protect myself... how does it make sense to prohibit me from doing so, and instead, put that obligation in the hands of someone who has little incentive to protect me?

right, bad stories. I am saying, if people are on the whole safer, wouldn't that be better? yes, someone will get brutally murdered who could have defended themselves otherwise. But if that means 1/3 of the people get murdered, is that a bad trade?

The interesting point you made is that it won't be the same across society. Some places might be worse off. That would need to be dealt with.

My impression is that if you think really hard about a gun in the US, it just materializes out of thin air. It's that easy to get a gun there. Yes, the system is flooded with guns. Some people use them to do bad things. Not rocket science.

And there is the answer to Dmitchel's question. Prevent the woman from having a gun.

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone.

But one more question. What do you propose is done about these tragedies? we both have children. I can't imagine this happening. Poor parents.